AirDoctor, LLC v. Lonni, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 28, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-00353
StatusUnknown

This text of AirDoctor, LLC v. Lonni, Inc. (AirDoctor, LLC v. Lonni, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
AirDoctor, LLC v. Lonni, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP Peter J. Farnese (SBN 251204) 2 pfarnese@ipcounselors.com 3 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 4 Telephone: 310-356-4668 Facsimile: 310-388-1232 5 Ashly E. Sands (pro hac vice) 6 asands@ipcounselors.com 7 Danielle Futterman (pro hac vice) dfutterman@ipcounselors.com 8 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1250 New York, NY 10165 9 Telephone: 212-292-5390 10 Facsimile: 212-292-5391 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 GLACIER LAW LLP 12 Tianyu Ju iris.ju@glacier.law 13 251 South Lake Avenue, Suite 910 14 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (323) 499-2666 15 Facsimile: (312) 801-4587 Attorneys for Defendants 16 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 AIRDOCTOR, LLC CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00353-GW (ASx) Plaintiff 21 22 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 23 LONNI, INC., 24 SHENZHENSHIDAZHANPENGTUHULI ANWANGYOUXIANGONGSI and JOBA 25 1 26 D efendants 27 1 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 2 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 3 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation. may be warranted. 4 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 5 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 6 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 7 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 8 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 9 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 10 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 11 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 12 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the 13 court to file material under seal. 14 1.1 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 15 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 16 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 17 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 18 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 19 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 20 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business 21 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information 22 (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 23 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 24 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 25 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 26 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 27 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 1 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 2 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 3 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 4 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 5 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 6 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 7 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 8 record of this case. 9 Additionally, here, there is a need for a two-tiered, attorneys’ eyes only 10 protective order that designates certain material as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 11 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. See Elements Spirits, Inc. v. Iconic Brands, Inc., Civ. 12 No. CV 15-02692 DDP(AGRx), 2016 WL 2642206, at *1–*2 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 13 2016) (holding that protective order with attorneys’ eyes only designation was 14 warranted to protect party’s confidential information) (citing Nutratech, Inc. v. 15 Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2008); Brown Bag Software v. 16 Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)). 17 2. DEFINITIONS 18 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, AirDoctor, LLC v. Lonni, Inc. et al., 19 Case No. 2:23-cv-00353-GW-AS. 20 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party (as defined herein) or Non-Party (as defined 21 herein) that challenges the designation of information or items under this 22 Stipulated Protective Order. 23 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 24 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 25 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified in the 26 Good Cause Statement. 27 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL – AEO” Information or Items: information or items that 1 other Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm, 2 including competitive injury, that could not be avoided by less restrictive 3 means. 4 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record (as defined herein) and In-House 5 Counsel (as defined herein), as well as their support staff. 6 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 7 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 8 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL - AEO”. 9 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 10 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 11 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are 12 produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 13 2.8 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 14 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its Counsel to 15 serve as an Expert or as a consultant in this Action. 16 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. In- 17 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 18 outside counsel. 19 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other 20 legal entity not named as a Party to this action, including support staff. 21 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a Party to 22 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party to this Action and 23 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a 24 law firm, which has appeared on behalf of that Party, including support staff. 25 2.12 Party: any Party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 26 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record 27 (and their support staff). 1 Material in this Action. 2 2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 3 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 4 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 5 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 6 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated 7 as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL - AEO”. 8 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from 9 a Producing Party. 10 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
960 F.2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
AirDoctor, LLC v. Lonni, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/airdoctor-llc-v-lonni-inc-cacd-2024.